I ran across a reference the other day to the matter of tenure, and it raised questions in my mind about certain received ideas about this phenomenon. I realize that the issue of tenure is a controversial one, and I'm probably crazy to wade out into the middle of it. But I think it has a relevance to Library 2.0 and the issue of institutional change.

At my library, staff who are given funding to attend conferences are required to write a report of their experiences. I just finished reading a report by an administrator who attended the ALA Midwinter meeting. A large part of her report was devoted to The Taiga Forum. I was impressed by the Provocative Statements (PDF format) that shaped this event.

The administrator's report was a great read. I was happy to see a lot of what was being discussed at the event. (An official version is due to be posted on the Taiga site.) But in the midst of all this goodness, something bothered me. There was discussion about the failure of librarians to keep current, and the report indicated that there was widespread agreement that tenure was a part of the problem. Renewable contracts were preferred.

I think this is nonsense.

I don't intend to argue for or against academic faculty status for librarians. This is another issue. What I'm arguing with here is the notion that the system of tenure holds libraries back.

Now, obviously this isn't the first time I've heard the argument that tenure can foster a slowdown or even an end to professional development. It crops up often enough. But I think this idea deserves some critical thinking.

Sure, we have tenured librarians who haven't kept up their knowledge and skills, and we're stuck with them. But what is really the source of this problem? I don't think it's tenure. I think it's the nature of library culture.

From what I've seen, the vast majority of librarians who come up for tenure are granted it. Those relatively few who don't make it in one institution move on to another one and get it. Or else, they go somewhere where academic status doesn't exist. Most librarians find a place for themselves.

It's also true that there are plenty of academic libraries that don't offer tenure. These libraries also experience the challenge of bringing staff into the modern age. I may have missed something, but I haven't heard about significant layoffs in non-tenure-granting libraries due to staff deficiencies. And I haven't noticed that libraries that require renewable contracts are accomplishing more innovative work than those in which tenure is granted. Apparently, annual reviews are no magic bullet.

The Taiga Forum is an event for assistant directors. This is what I find to be so interesting. I can't help thinking that maybe these administrators need to look more closely at themselves. Maybe they need to figure out ways to become managers who act as inspirations to their staff, so that pre- and post-tenure librarians will work with them in a professional environment that encourages adaptability, creativity, innovation and risk. Maybe these administrators need to work harder to articulate wise and coherent visions, sponsor exciting programs, offer effective training, work out clear priorities, and set worthwhile goals that make things happen. Maybe they need to contribute to creating a library culture in which change is not optional, whether you are a new librarian or an experienced one, tenured or not, an administrator or on the front lines. Rather than attribute some of our failures to the tenure system, why not take a look at the culture of our institutions? I don't think we can separate one from the other.

I've known cases in which tenured librarians have stuck out their necks to move their libraries forward and have been squelched. I've also known cases in which non-tenured librarians have experienced the same thing.

In sum, the logic of the argument against tenure just doesn't hold up. Give or take human nature and the law of averages, imagine a staff of tenured librarians who are both inspired and committed to their institutions. This is not totally out of the question, given the right conditions.

Would post-tenure review help? Only if any review would make a difference overall to the dynamism of libraries. But it will take more than annual reviews to accomplish this.